California company that hires protesters is accused of extortion

[Endus]

When a commercial runs on a TV or whatever medium, it is known that it is coming from the company trying to sell that product. That's simply a societal known.

That people might have been paid by a company to protest or proclaim a certain opinion, is something completely different, that isn't known to the greater population.

The factor you describe in #1 is not a requirement. You generally know, because they want to attract attention to their company/product/movement. But conversely, if they won't identify that, maybe you should engage your critical thinking and ask why not?

This is an issue that's solved by the audience being critical rather than witless and easily-led sheep.

Paying a mob to influence national discourse is wrong, happy?

Money should not be the driving factor in influencing opinions of a populace.

Weren't you against Citizens United?

Citizens United was an issue with corporate campaign spending, and my issue was with how it biased politicians to corporate interests in a corruptive manner. I took issue with their description that money was essentially, itself, speech.

That said money could be used to broadcast speech is not something I have ever had any real problem with. Nor have most people. Hence my comparison to advertising campaigns and the like. If you want to write a book about how much you hate bananas, and self-publish it, and hand out copies for free, why should I have an issue with you spending your money on your anti-banana campaign?

[IIamaKing]

The factor you describe in #1 is not a requirement. You generally know, because they want to attract attention to their company/product/movement. But conversely, if they won't identify that, maybe you should engage your critical thinking and ask why not?

This is an issue that's solved by the audience being critical rather than witless and easily-led sheep.


Citizens United was an issue with corporate campaign spending, and my issue was with how it biased politicians to corporate interests in a corruptive manner. I took issue with their description that money was essentially, itself, speech.

That said money could be used to broadcast speech is not something I have ever had any real problem with. Nor have most people. Hence my comparison to advertising campaigns and the like. If you want to write a book about how much you hate bananas, and self-publish it, and hand out copies for free, why should I have an issue with you spending your money on your anti-banana campaign?

So you are ok with private money being used to influence elections, so long as it does not influence politicians? As if there is a way to make that magically happen. lol

Like I said, interesting opinions.

A private firm, paying 1000 people to protest their competitor, or Paying to fund a protest against a unfriendly politician is NOT a good thing. Especially when the media picks up and runs with the story as if its a REAL reaction to a thing. Its a perfect example fake news. A manufactured story to generate a specific opinion in the populace, its BAD for us.

[Endus]

So you are ok with private money being used to influence elections, so long as it does not influence politicians? As if there is a way to make that magically happen. lol

I have a problem when politicians are functionally bought by corporate interests funding their campaigning and attacking strings to that funding.

I don't have a problem with corporations expressing their preferences via actual speech.

The two are pretty darned distinct.

Ironically, by pretending you can't see the difference, you're essentially agreeing with the Citizens United decision in this, which you oddly tried to project on me.

[IIamaKing]

I have a problem when politicians are functionally bought by corporate interests funding their campaigning and attacking strings to that funding.

I don't have a problem with corporations expressing their preferences via actual speech.

The two are pretty darned distinct.

Ironically, by pretending you can't see the difference, you're essentially agreeing with the Citizens United decision in this, which you oddly tried to project on me.

You can't have one without the other, How can that exist in your mind? Its ok for Pepsi to run an ad saying "Hey Clinton sucks Vote Trump". But not Ok for Pepsi to say to Trump I will support you with ads if you support me with laws(Obviously something we don't want). If you allow the first, the second WILL happen. Even if its against the law.

A paid protest is a false narrative, and spreading those is harmful to objective, informed discussion. But I guess that's OK, so long as a politician wasnt implicitly bribed by it.

[Deleted]

The factor you describe in #1 is not a requirement. You generally know, because they want to attract attention to their company/product/movement. But conversely, if they won't identify that, maybe you should engage your critical thinking and ask why not?

This is an issue that's solved by the audience being critical rather than witless and easily-led sheep.

Okay. I then believe you are currently being paid to say all of this to support companies, meaning anything and everything you say to somehow argue is essentially invalidated, because you are have an inherent bias.

[Endus]

You can't have one without the other, How can that exist in your mind? Its ok for Pepsi to run an ad saying "Hey Clinton sucks Vote Trump". But not Ok for Pepsi to say to Trump I will support you with ads if you support me with laws(Obviously something we don't want). If you allow the first, the second WILL happen. Even if its against the law.

You haven't made any case for that. Your argument here is explicitly opposed to freedom of speech; you're arguing that speech itself corrupts. I fundamentally dispute that to be true.

A paid protest is a false narrative, and spreading those is harmful to objective, informed discussion. But I guess that's OK, so long as a politician wasnt implicitly bribed by it.

It isn't a "false narrative". It's just not your narrative.

Okay. I then believe you are currently being paid to say all of this to support companies, meaning anything and everything you say to somehow argue is essentially invalidated, because you are have an inherent bias.

You know that your overactive imagination isn't reality, right?

[Deleted]

You know that your overactive imagination isn't reality, right?

That was literally your own argument, that people should essentially discredit everything, because of the possibility of it being fake. I applied that, and seeing as you are defending the corporate worlds capability to spin false narratives as an inherent none negative, I can but only come to the conclusion that you must do so out of a monetary gain and not an actual conviction.

[Endus]

That was literally your own argument, that people should essentially discredit everything, because of the possibility of it being fake.

Well, no. It wasn't. I never said anything of the sort. So, like I said, this your own overactive imagination.

[IIamaKing]

It isn't a "false narrative". It's just not your narrative.

LOL If a buy a protest against you and the news runs the story, "Huge protest against endus occured to bring light to his love of Pineapple pizza(we all know this is pretty much the WORST). Its absolutely a false narrative, a mob didnt form against you, I paid for it to happen, THAT is the facts of the matter. Not the rally of people shouting w/e I paid them to.
How you cannot see the difference between a real protest and paid one (and how paid ones are BAD)is beyond me, enough for me to say its not worth continuing this with you.

[Endus]

LOL If a buy a protest against you and the news runs the story, "Huge protest against endus occured to bring light to his love of Pineapple pizza(we all know this is pretty much the WORST). Its absolutely a false narrative, a mob didnt form against you, I paid for it to happen, THAT is the facts of the matter. Not the rally of people shouting w/e I paid them to.
How you cannot see the difference between a real protest and paid one (and how paid ones are BAD)is beyond me, enough for me to say its not worth continuing this with you.

Was there a mob of people?

Was that what they were protesting?

Then it isn't a "false narrative". It's literally what happened. And you're trying to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to attack me for loving pineapple on pizza.

Your argument is opposed to freedom of speech. At its core.

[IIamaKing]

Was there a mob of people?

Was that what they were protesting?

Then it isn't a "false narrative". It's literally what happened. And you're trying to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to attack me for loving pineapple on pizza.

Your argument is opposed to freedom of speech. At its core.

What literally happened is a private interest paid to slander you. A protest gives the impression that the PEOPLE(at least some) are against something, not a singular entity.

You are obtuse. Good day sir.

[Endus]

What literally happened is a private interest paid to slander you.

I do like pineapple on pizza, though. If it's actual slander, there's defamation laws that I can pursue a suit under. If not, well, what's the issue again?